NEGATIVE — DISADVANTAGE — FREE SPEECH 181
ANNOYANCE AT INFORMATION EXCHANGE DOES NOT JUSTIFY COMPROMISING FREE SPEECH RIGHTS
JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ANNOYED BY INFORMATION EXCHANGE DOES NOT JUSTIFY ABRIDGING FREE SPEECH RIGHTS
Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, January 22, 1998 Cato Policy Analysis No. 295 PRIVACY AS CENSORSHIP: A Skeptical View of Proposals to Regulate Privacy in the Private Sector
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html // acs-EE2001Free speech should be protected even when it annoys. Those who favor the creation of new privacy rights use their annoyance with direct marketing as a justification for regulation. They condemn the collection of consumer information out of fear that the creation of databases of consumer information will result in a deluge of junk mail and phone calls. They argue that direct marketing is somehow "unfair" or promotes consumerism, particularly when marketers target children. But these arguments do not provide a sound justification for government action; consumers face little or no danger from those who merely want to persuade them to buy things.
WE TRADE OUR IMPRESSIONS OF OTHERS AND EVENTS FREELY, WE WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO BE REGULATED, AND MUST NOT REGULATE BUSINESS ABILITY TO DO SO IN THE INTERESTS OF VAGUE PRIVACY CONCERNS
Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, October 18, 1999
http://www.cdt.org/privacy/FTC/profiling/singleton.htm// acs-EE2001We might want to change the default rule that gives people the general right to make observations about other human beings… but if we are going to do so--it had better be for a really, really good reason. Not in response to spectral fears that have not, apparently, done much to keep folks offline line.